Bush Does His Nero Impression
Bush looked tense and scared, as he should be. But while his swagger has disappeared, his delusions have not. Most of the press and punditocracy have been critical of Bush’s speech (hallelujah!). Much of the commentary, however, has been focused on whether or not what Bush outlined is merely a tactical rather than strategic change or whether 20,000 troops will make any difference, etc. Most of the commentators must surely know that those questions are basically background noise. The real issue is that the whole speech was based on the false and dangerous premise that Bush continues to embrace: that there is an “independent” Iraqi army and government. So while Bush made arguments in support of sending more troops to Baghdad and Anbar and nominally admitted that mistakes were made, he went right on talking about the Iraqi military as if it were a unified force. There was no acknowledgment that sectarian militias effectively control large parts of the army and that Iraq’s government wouldn’t survive without the tacit approval of the Shia leaders whom it is supposedly trying to reign in.
The New York Times editorial page sees the Bush speech for what it was - a total sham based on an irredeemable policy. The Washington Post editorial page, however, as is its wont when it comes to Iraq, offers a mealy-mouthed critique in which it says Bush should have talked about stepped up training for Iraqi troops. Tragically, all the training in the world is not going to make a whit of difference.